Well, negative gearing should only ever apply to brand new housing and for just three-five years; which would result in more supply and turnover?

Ditto foreign investors, who should be limited to new apartments?

There should be a congestion tax, but only on enterprise located in capital cities; rather than commuters forced to go there to work or conduct commercial enterprise! (parking fees are already through the roof) However, excluded if located very adjacent to a rail line?

And outer suburbs must have more rail adjacent parking towers.

I mean if it were cheaper to park your car there for the day or 12-14 hours, and use the train rather than pay inner-city parking fees, and lock horns with a commute done at walking pace!

Most would chose the less costly and time consuming option!

Besides, trains can also serve outer suburbs, should any enterprise choose to relocate in order to save taxes, which could be ramped up, with increasing congestion.

I mean, it's only city centric commercial enterprise that creates all these population pressures/unaffordable house prices to begin with, along with greedy developers and pollies, without any other ideas?

Like say rolling out rapid rail, financed by the sale of thirty year self terminating bonds!

Which could be fully recovered by the later sale of resumed rural and newly rezoned urban land, along parts of mile wide corridors?

Six or seven of those resumed as alternative future routes, would enable plenty of new government land, released in a timely manner, which would also put downward pressure on house prices, preferably before the expanding bubble explodes!

And these new rail adjacent centres would ensure, the tracks would remain viable/earn a handsome return!

Exploding housing markets serve very few, save greedy gobble them all up, cashed up investors! Ah so Grasshopper?

As for rents going up?

It's hard to increase something already operating at max or in the red zone!

And a mindless recipe to just drive their customers further and further out; which can only ever exacerbate existing problems!
Rhrosty.

Hi Rhosty, if you only want negative gearing allowed for new houses, that would dramatically cut the number of rentals available.

How would that affect the price of rentals do you think?
Would you expect the Government to supply more housing for the rental market in today's 'budget emergency'?

Housing and building construction are one of the few areas where investment is possible, since manufactures are going. The more we put energy into pulling down good houses in order to build McMansions, the better for our GDP. Which shows how silly it is to put GDP as a measure of our wealth.
A holistic discussion of housing needs to take this into consideration too.

Rhrosty and suzyonline - it is fairly easy to substitute between old and new housing (and apartments). So restrictions on one will rapidly affect the other. For example, anyone with enough cash can buy an old house and convert it into a new one.
Rhrosty - a congestion tax is a good idea won't help housing affordability if there aren't enough houses being built in the centre of cities.

Ozideas - GDP isn't a measure of wealth, it is a (fairly flawed) measure of the change in wealth. The ABS measures wealth in the publication Australian System of National Accounts. The latest is here: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/110953FFA28D4E52CA2572110002FF03?opendocument

Hi Susan, I believe negative gearing has simply allowed far more investors than is healthy for the rental market; and has created an environment where first home buyers are priced out of a market, which is full of depreciating structures. More home owners means less demand for rental properties!

And were we not lead by the woolly headed and or the unscrupulous, land rationing would cease and be replaced with something much more rational.

Currently, as much a 70% of some state's populations, is crammed (tinned people) into already overcrowded capitals, with the remaining 30% doing it tough for want of viable population numbers.

And would we but create the conditions as already outlined, to effectively reverse those population trends, rentals would have no other choice than come way way down!

Yes we can cope with our current immigration numbers, just not in already overcrowded capital cities.

Yes and given we build those very rapid rail links, there's a case for building government owned high rise accommodation along side the tracks; and allow good quality tenants an option to buy their well looked after premises, after say 5 years and with part of their accrued rent acting as their deposit?

That would get them off of the rental merry-go-round; and started as property owners.

Those towers could be multifaceted, with commercial operators occupying the first 2-4 floors, inclusive of Kindies or creches; the average or below average income tenants, the next 10-15 floors, and the highest levels/penthouses etc, occupied by the well heeled?

Which would prevent them becoming ghettos populated by the poor and or, career crims.

But rather places that allow the unemployed/underemployed, to mix daily, with potential employers?

And future intending owners taking pride in their building! And heaven help those who don't!
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Micheal P; I was referring to brand new never lived in housing, not recently renovated older structures; some of which would be forcibly renovated due to the mandated removal of asbestos!

And given its widespread use in established housing, a logical reason to buy brand spanking new.

And there's significant differences between apartments and housing.

Apartments share the cost of the land, are invariably concrete structures, and therefore cost far less to build per unit, and last longer than timber, bricks and mortar housing.

I mean, prestressed concrete reaches its full strength at around 80 years!

And far better use of limited government money; and tailor made for 30 year self terminating bonds, as the superannuation friendly financing medium!

Given, those and eastern seaboard rapid rail, guaranteed to make a substantial profit over the longer term.

Imagine, the tower would pay itself inside/over thirty years, and the remaining fifty good years, would be almost pure profit; and able to be reinvested in similar long term profitable projects! Ditto rapid rail!

And one can only imagine how high rents, rail fates or average incomes will be by then!

All that's lacking in that scenario, is governments with enough long term future vision, to bring them into fruition!
Rhrosty.